The Assembly met at 10.30 am (Mr Speaker in the Chair).
Members observed two minutes’ silence.

Assembly Business

Dr Ian Adamson: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. At the weekend, our party Whips advised us that on the Order Paper this morning there was to be a motion pertaining to the serious situation at Bombardier Shorts. Is it in order to ask why that motion was withdrawn?

Mr Speaker: It is unfortunate that, from time to time, some change may arise in the circumstances of someone who has a motion on the Order Paper, after the Business Committee has agreed the Order Paper but before it is printed. It may concern a Member who is tabling a motion, a Minister with an item of business, or a particular clause of a Bill, with the result that that item of business must be withdrawn. It can even happen that items of business that are on the Order Paper do not proceed for various reasons.
As far as the particular circumstances are concerned, I would prefer that those issues did not become a matter of substantial debate in the Chamber. There is, of course, no reason why the Business Committee could not discuss such a matter.

North/South Ministerial Council: Tourism

Sir Reg Empey: The fourth meeting of the North/South Ministerial Council (NSMC) in the tourism sectoral format took place in Dublin on Wednesday 7 November 2001. After nomination by the then First Minister and the then Deputy First Minister, Dr Seán Farren and I represented the Northern Ireland Administration. The Irish Government were represented by Dr James McDaid TD, Minister for Tourism, Sport and Recreation. This report has been approved by Dr Farren and is also made on his behalf.
Mr Andrew Coppel, chairman of Tourism Ireland Ltd, presented a progress report to the council on developments since the last tourism sector meeting. Mr Coppel reported that, after an open recruitment process, Mr Paul O’Toole formally took up his position as chief executive of Tourism Ireland Ltd on 16 July 2001. Mr Coppel also gave an update on recruiting staff to new positions in the company and on progress on the company’s new premises in Dublin and Coleraine. Mr Coppel reported that the board of Tourism Ireland Ltd had formulated a comprehensive marketing programme for the 2002 season, together with the creation of new marketing communication materials. Mr Coppel also informed the Council that a tourism marketing partnership had been formed with members of the tourism industry to assist Tourism Ireland Ltd in its strategic thinking.
The Council noted that preparation of the Tourism Ireland Ltd corporate plan had commenced. It is intended that the plan will be submitted for approval at the next meeting of the North/South Ministerial Council in this sector.
The Council received a verbal report from Mr O’Toole on developments since his appointment in July. That covered issues such as market conditions in the tourism industry after the events of 11 September and the objectives and strategy of the company for the 2002 marketing campaign. The Council assured Mr O’Toole of its support in meeting the significant challenges facing the company.
Dr Farren gave the Council an update on the progress made on the tourism training initiatives that were discussed at earlier meetings, such as the business renewal for hospitality and tourism operators programme, the operational skills development programme and the scheme facilitating the exchange of teachers, educationalists, trainers and practitioners.
The Council agreed that its next meeting in tourism sectoral format would take place in Northern Ireland in February 2002.

Mr David McClarty: Will the Minister advise the House if a location has been identified for the Northern Ireland headquarters based in Coleraine? Has recruitment begun, and when is the Coleraine office likely to open?

Sir Reg Empey: Significant progress has been made in establishing the Coleraine office. Discussions between Tourism Ireland Ltd, the Valuation and Lands Agency and the developer are almost complete. Tourism Ireland Ltd wishes to ensure that the Coleraine office is a fully functional regional office, including reception, necessary information technology infrastructure and the ability to meet the trade and to support future board meetings.
Owing to the technical requirements of the information technology role in Coleraine, costs are still being calculated. Temporary premises have been identified in the New Row area, at numbers 34 to 36b, and will be available from 1 December 2001. Coleraine will have 16 staff with responsibility for information technology, direct marketing, printing and distribution, financial and administrative support for Coleraine, call centre management and public relations. It is expected to take approximately four to five months to build the new structure with the specific information technology requirements that are necessary. In the meantime, temporary facilities will be available. Some staff are already transferring. Two have been identified so far. The total complement will be 16.

Mr John Dallat: Representing as I do the North’s number one tourist area, which includes Coleraine, I welcome the Minister’s interest in that area. Can he give the number of people, North and South, participating in the training programmes that he has announced? Has any evaluation taken place? What relationship will the new tourism company have with the regional tourism organisations (RTOs)?

Sir Reg Empey: I see that the last two Members are impartial in their opinions of the tourism potential of Coleraine.
Regional tourism organisations remain a significant tool in the delivery of a successful tourism policy. Tourism Ireland Ltd has already engaged with them directly. As far as I know, the chief executive and his colleagues have been to see most of the RTOs and have explained their ideas to them. One measure of the company’s success will be its ability to build strong partnerships with the RTOs.
I shall have to defer to my Colleague, Dr Farren, regarding numbers on training programmes. I shall write to the Member with those details. Dr Farren will confirm that the response has been exceptionally positive, and we are very pleased. Some of the schemes are oversubscribed, particularly as regards graduates. The Council of Education, Recruitment and Training (CERT), which is the Republic of Ireland’s equivalent body for dealing with training in the tourism and hospitality sector, and the Department for Employment and Learning have worked very closely together. The schemes have advanced more quickly than expected since our meeting in Letterkenny, and we expect a positive outcome. Dr Farren’s Department and CERT will monitor the results, and I am sure that those can be made available to Members.

Mr Barry McElduff: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Cuirim fáilte roimh an chruinniú agus roimh an ráiteas.
I welcome the meeting, the statement and Mr O’Toole’s appointment as chief executive of Tourism Ireland Ltd. Does the comprehensive marketing programme include a focus on cultural tourism? Have the Minister’s thoughts on market conditions developed in the wake of the events of 11 September?

Sir Reg Empey: Mr O’Toole and Mr Coppel reported on events after 11 September, and it will come as no surprise that there has been a significant impact. Air traffic and passenger movements in the United States immediately dropped by 90%, as did confidence in the market. Approximately 25% of the seats on flights across the Atlantic have now gone.
This period, like spring, is called the shoulder of the season, and it is being used increasingly to bolster tourism earnings. Undoubtedly, there will be a significant fall-off, and there is no way of sweeping that under the carpet. The precise extent varies among sectors, and the full picture will not be available until statistics are collected.
Cultural tourism is an area with significant growth potential. Marketing plans are still being established, but it is obvious that we can offer culture-related and heritage-related tourism. We believe that it is attractive to visitors from North America and Europe. Last year, we had a substantial increase in tourism from France, and it was in the area of natural resource-based cultural heritage, gardens, and visits to historical sites. Cultural tourism will be one of the growth areas of the future.
I shall briefly return to Mr Dallat’s question, because I was not quick enough with my notes. I do have some statistics on participating numbers. However, in view of the different categories it would still be better to provide details in writing.

Mr Jim Wilson: The Minister will be aware that August was a particularly disastrous month for the tourism industry. I believe that Americans are in the habit of booking holidays in February and March. At that time of the year, we were in the middle of the foot-and-mouth disease crisis. Action must be taken to attract lost business back to Northern Ireland; it will not happen of its own accord. Are there plans to make the industry more buoyant?

Sir Reg Empey: The Member has identified one of this year’s twin problems. The foot-and-mouth disease outbreak happened in the spring — I think in February. Many holidays are booked during March and April. Undoubtedly, there was a significant downturn in business, with figures of 10% to 15% mentioned. However, until the season is over, and statistics are analysed, it will be difficult to determine the exact amount of decline. Moreover, a complete cut-off point was reached as a result of the events of 11 September.
The North/South Ministerial Council has discussed the problem at great length. The chairperson and the chief executive of Tourism Ireland Ltd are focused on that issue. They have set out an ambitious, but thoughtful, marketing programme for the coming season. Members will be impressed with it. It is intelligent, with Tourism Ireland Ltd retaining a degree of flexibility. The company does not commit its entire budget to any one sector. It will hold back some resources so that it can react as events occur. However, using the Gulf War in 1991 as a yardstick to measure how quickly the American market can recover, it took three to four full seasons. That was taken into account on the marketing plans.
We shall not attract the same volume of business from North America. Therefore, we must attract more business from closer to home. That means refocusing additional marketing in Great Britain. There will be a specific marketing strategy for Scotland and the north of England, as those areas attract the most visitors. We shall also refocus to a degree on Europe because, although there have not been the same flight difficulties, huge access problems exist. That is another major issue.

Dr Alasdair McDonnell: I thank the Minister for his report. Members are interested in the outlook for 2002 and must be satisfied with predictions. Many people want to know when Tourism Ireland Ltd will begin to make an impact. That is its first test.
Another important issue is the relationship between the Tourism Ireland Ltd offices abroad, the IDB offices and the Executive Information Service offices in Washington and Brussels. Will an integrated approach be adopted to maximise the benefits as widely as possible?

Sir Reg Empey: If things go according to plan, the transfer of staff from Bord Fáilte and the Northern Ireland Tourist Board will formally take effect on 1 September. For the first time, the company will have its own staff. The transfer of people from the overseas offices to Tourism Ireland Ltd will take effect from 1 December.
The future of the overseas offices has not been determined. The Council will return to the issue at its next meeting, because several instances of duplication have arisen. Some of the offices are located in embassy buildings, whereas Tourism Ireland Ltd’s approach will be market driven and commercially focused. Therefore offices must be established with that in mind. At the moment, the Industrial Development Board (IDB) has a network in North America and one or two offices in other parts of the world. However, those offices are not specifically linked to tourism. Tourism Ireland Ltd is a joint company owned by the two tourist boards.
New York is still one of the best places to have an office — it would be inconceivable not to have one there. We would need some convincing that Washington would be a suitable location for a tourism base — we do not even have an Industrial Development Board office there. However, when the Executive office in Washington is opened we expect the IDB to make use of it, although that may not be on a permanent basis. I note the point and will mention it to the company, but there are no plans to develop a totally integrated approach with the Tourism Ireland Ltd offices. I can, however, foresee circumstances where the Brussels and Washington offices could have a gateway into both of those sectors.

Mr Speaker: I shall call one further Member, but I wish to make a comment that is more for the benefit of Members who are not here than those who are. Ministers have generally been good about making statements to the House rather than making them outside first. That should be appreciated and respected. Statements are made to provide information and to give Members an opportunity to ask questions. Therefore in future I do not intend to call Members to ask questions on ministerial statements if they have not been here for ministerial statements. It is clear that those Members do not intend to ask questions on the statement but on a subject that takes their fancy. If Ministers are good enough to come to the House to make statements rather than make them outside, Members ought to be good enough to be in the Chamber to hear the statement on which they can ask a question. That is a warning for the future, and I hope that Members will transmit that to erring absent Members.

Mr Barry McElduff: On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr Speaker: Points of order are not normally taken during ministerial statements, so I shall take the last question and then the point of order.

Ms Jane Morrice: I want to apologise. When I switched on the monitor and saw the Minister speaking, I was afraid that I would miss something in my rush down to the Chamber, so I stayed to watch the speech on the monitor. That way I made sure that I did not miss anything in the Minister’s statement.
I am impressed by the marketing angles. I was also impressed by what the Minister said about the need to focus on Europe. The same air flight difficulties do not exist in Europe as in the United States. The Minister will know what my question will be. What accommodation will be made for the fact that the euro is being introduced? Is Tourism Ireland Ltd making any plans to accommodate the euro, with foreign tourists in mind?

Sir Reg Empey: The Member has combined ingenuity in introducing the matter and predictability in asking the question. As the Member knows, my Department is responsible, through the euro preparations forum, for ensuring that businesses are aware of the implications of the introduction of the euro in January. Tourism Ireland Ltd does not have a responsibility in that regard, for, although the Republic is introducing the euro and we are not, it is still the responsibility of individual businesses to prepare. However, Tourism Ireland Ltd and the respective tourist boards have been anxious to ensure that customers can be accommodated. With effect from January, customers in the European Union have a right to be accommodated. Therefore, if businesses fail to follow the guidance that we have issued or to take up our offers of help, they will fail as businesses because they are obliged to be able to take payments and make appropriate arrangements in euros with effect from January. Tourism Ireland Ltd is trying to market in two currencies. That is a difficult problem to tackle.
The literature that is being prepared will make specific reference to currencies. It will point out the differences and try to offer the best advice to potential visitors by ensuring that they are fully informed. Similarly, industry is being kept informed of the proposed contents of the literature and the web site so that it can be prepared. However, individual businesses have an obligation to ensure that they can accommodate our visitors. They will be in default if they do not.

Mr Speaker: I am all for the use of new technology, but the Member and the House must be aware that her reason for being allowed to ask a question despite not having been in the Chamber will not be acceptable in future: it is too easily abused.

Dr Alasdair McDonnell: Lies. She is telling lies.

Mr Speaker: The Member should withdraw that comment made from a sedentary position. It is unparliamentary.

Dr Alasdair McDonnell: I withdraw the remark.

Mr Barry McElduff: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Does the Speaker have the flexibility to offer those Members who were present for the Minister’s statement the opportunity to ask a second round of questions?

Mr Speaker: Ms Morrice’s ingenuity is matched only by that of Mr McElduff. The answer to both their questions is no.

Part-Time Workers Regulations

Dr Sean Farren: I beg to move
That the Part-time Workers (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2001 (SR 319/2001) be approved.
I shall refer to those Regulations as the part-time workers Regulations. They were laid before the Assembly on 12 September 2001, came into operation on 21 October 2001, and are subject to confirmation by the Assembly within six months of the latter date.
The Regulations amended the Part-time Workers (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2000, which implemented European Union Directive 97/81/EC, as extended to the UK by Directive 98/23/EC, in Northern Ireland. The aim of this essentially technical amendment is to enable the Labour Relations Agency to conciliate in industrial tribunal cases brought under the part-time workers Regulations.
Under the Industrial Tribunals (Northern Ireland) Order 1996, the Labour Relations Agency may conciliate between parties to certain employment disputes, and, if both parties agree, reach binding agreements that obviate the need for a tribunal hearing. However, the Labour Relations Agency is granted that power only in respect of disputes relating to specified employment legislation. The list of such legislation did not cover disputes relating to certain provisions of the Part-time Workers (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2000. The Regulations before the Assembly today will enable the Labour Relations Agency to conciliate in that jurisdiction also. In other words, these Regulations effectively make good an omission relating to the jurisdiction of the Labour Relations Agency in certain provisions of those Regulations. I commend the Regulations to the Assembly.

Dr Esmond Birnie: On behalf of the Committee, I welcome the approval of this statutory rule. The Committee considered the rule on 11 October 2001, together with the report from the Examiner of Statutory Rules, and the Committee had no objection to the rule. As the Minister said, the statutory rule is a technical amendment to primary legislation, and it gives new powers to the Labour Relations Agency to conciliate on claims where part-time workers allege that they have suffered a grievance at work.
At present such cases must go directly to an industrial tribunal. The Committee welcomes the proposal because it will take pressure off the tribunal system.
The Committee shares the concern raised by many people about the increase in the number of cases that went through tribunals in the past decade. The Committee for Employment and Learning will scrutinise how this legislation and other improvements relating to the tribunal system help both employers and employees, so that a speedier resolution can be achieved. However, the Committee wants reassurance that the Labour Relations Agency has received, or will, if necessary, receive, the extra resources needed to carry out this function effectively. Subject to that caveat, I add the Committee’s support to the motion.

Mr John Dallat: As a Member of the Committee for Employment and Learning and as someone with an interest in equality, I too welcome the motion. It will enable the Labour Relations Agency to help to settle disputes in the workplace. Indeed, I will take this opportunity to say that the performance of the Labour Relations Agency has been very satisfactory in recent times.
It is important that part-time workers have the same rights and protection as their full-time colleagues. For too long part-time workers were the Cinderellas of the workplace. This statutory rule proposes equality for a group that has suffered terrible injustices in the past, often resulting in personal hardship not only for individuals but also for their families. At a time when more and more people are employed part time — sometimes by choice, but often through necessity — it is critical that their human rights are protected in the same way as those of full-time workers. There never was, nor should there ever have been, any excuse for treating workers differently, but part-time workers have on occasions been exploited in the most appalling ways.
Let us send out a clear message that the age of equality is arriving — slowly, but surely — and that the Assembly is determined to eliminate all forms of social and legal injustice so that the principles enshrined in the Good Friday Agreement apply to everyone. Part-time workers have been treated badly by both the Government and the private sector. That should now end. We hope that all employers now follow the example of others who never differentiated between full-time and part-time workers, but treated them as people.
Can the Minister tell us what percentage of industrial tribunal cases the Labour Relations Agency deals with successfully?

Dr Sean Farren: I thank the two Members who have spoken.
Workers who lodge an industrial tribunal application under the Part-time Workers (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2001 will have the same right as in other jurisdictions to approach the Labour Relations Agency for assistance in reaching a conciliated settlement with their employers.
In response to Mr Dallat’s question, the Labour Relations Agency facilitated a conciliated settlement in over 22% of all cases brought to industrial tribunals and played a key role in a significant proportion of the 33·5% of cases withdrawn. Obviously, access to the Labour Relations Agency for assistance in reaching a conciliated settlement can be quite effective and should, in all justice, be available to part-time workers as much as to full-time workers, as this amendment to the Regulations is intended to ensure.
Regulations provide for greater choice for part-time workers and their employers in the way in which their cases are handled. They will afford them the opportunity to avoid the cost and inconvenience of a full hearing, if they wish. Any reduction in the number of cases needing to be heard by an industrial tribunal is also good news for the tribunal system itself. I can tell Dr Birnie that my Department will monitor the resource implications of any significant increase in the caseload of the Labour Relations Agency.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved:
That the Part-time Workers (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2001 (SR 319/2001) be approved.

Health and Social Services Staff

Ms Sue Ramsey: I beg to move
That this Assembly calls on the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety to work towards the common validation and recognition of the qualifications of health and social services staff on a cross-border basis.
Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I thank the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety for attending.
All Members are aware of the financial and staffing problems in the health sector. Recognition of qualifications on an all-island basis would give staff greater flexibility of movement. That would be especially important in the border counties, where hospitals and boards already work on a cross-border basis for the benefit of their patients. Such recognition of qualifications would remove the need for dual registration, which is time consuming and costly. It would also go some way towards tackling staff shortages, especially in positions that must be filled at short notice.
The current registration system prevents nurses from working throughout areas such as those covered by hospitals in Letterkenny and Derry or Sligo and Enniskillen. Everyone is aware that waiting lists are growing — in some cases, that is due to a shortage in nursing staff — and this small move would have long-term benefits for patients and would help to shorten waiting lists.
There have always been strong links between practitioners North and South; most difficulties concerned service delivery, which is affected by the registration situation. The British Medical Association (BMA) has written to welcome the commitment in the Programme for Government to develop areas for closer co-operation through the North/South Ministerial Council. The BMA asks for a cross-cutting study of the barriers that doctors face in North/South work. The BMA also wants clarification of any new all-Ireland system of registration of medical practitioners and of how such a system would solve the professional, legal and technical problems of working in both jurisdictions. The BMA also recognises the importance of sharing clinical expertise and experience and of co-operation in areas such as research and development. In September 2000 the BMA and the Irish Medical Organisation jointly hosted the first all-Ireland health conference.
Paramedics can work on both sides of the border as a good Samaritan act, and they have a good working relationship. However, there are some serious problems. Agreed training standards would benefit patients, especially in the border counties. I urge all parties to support this common-sense approach; it can only be of benefit to patients and staff.

Mr Kieran McCarthy: Ms Ramsey said, there is a crisis in almost every sector of Northern Ireland’s health and social services, including staff throughout the Health Service. The motion is worthy of support because, if implemented, health and social services staff throughout this island would be able to exercise their skills across Northern Ireland. Currently, health staff are being brought into our hospitals from the far corners of the world. Such staff are very welcome, and they contribute enormously to the welfare of all the people of Northern Ireland.
As the health spokesperson for the Alliance Party, I fully support the motion. Ms Ramsey mentioned the border counties; I would prefer to include all counties in Northern Ireland among those that would benefit from the proposal.

Mr John Kelly: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I too support the motion. As my Colleague has said, it will help to bring forward the harmonisation of healthcare throughout the island of Ireland. That is significant. It is not a political point. The health issue affects all of us who live on this island.
Considering the wider issue, with co-operation, major savings could be made in health benefits, particularly in the border counties. As Kieran McCarthy has said, that is not confined to the border areas but applies to the island of Ireland. That is especially true in relation to nursing and health and social services staff, because there is currently a shortage of nursing staff. Nurses are being brought in from the Philippines and from other Far Eastern countries to help to service the shortage of nurses in the island. Harmonisation, or fewer difficulties for nurses from one part of the island practising in another, would help to alleviate those shortages.
The shortages are an important issue, but the wider picture involves an attempt to bring some harmonisation to health provision. We looked at the fuel crisis, and we discussed harmonisation in that context, given the wide variation in fuel prices — petrol and diesel, et cetera — between the Twenty-six Counties and the Six Counties. The harmonisation of healthcare would have a much greater impact on the well-being of our citizens throughout the island of Ireland.
The motion, while it is confined to the issue of health and social services staff, widens the horizon and gives us an idea of how we might approach health on a 32-county, all-Ireland basis. I support the motion. We should give consideration to its wider implications for health provision.

Ms Jane Morrice: I support the motion on the grounds that it makes sense. I must admit that I understood that in the single European market there was provision for the freedom of movement of goods, capital and services throughout the member states of the European Union.
Strenuous work has been conducted in Brussels to move towards the mutual recognition of diplomas and qualifications in all European Union countries. That would be important, not only on a cross-border, island of Ireland basis but on a Europe-wide basis. In a single market, people with qualifications should be able to move — whether it is to the Republic of Ireland, Italy, Greece, Portugal or anywhere in the European Union. In the early days there was mutual recognition of qualifications in hairdressing. That got through, but there is still much work to be done on other qualifications, such as pharmaceutical industry qualifications.
I support the motion not only on an all-Ireland basis but also on a Europe-wide basis.

Dr Joe Hendron: I congratulate Sue Ramsey on tabling the motion and apologise for not being in the House for her speech.
Co-operation and Working Together (CAWT) is a long-established co-operative venture. The CAWT project was set up in 1992 when the North Eastern and North Western Health Boards in the Republic, and the Southern and Western Health and Social Services Boards in Northern Ireland, entered into formal arrangements. That was the Ballyconnell Agreement.
It is important to work towards the common validation and recognition of the qualifications of health and social services staff on a cross-border basis. Nurses are the backbone of any health service, and that is true of Northern Ireland, where there are major problems in the Health Service. There are grades for nurses, social workers and others. It is not irrelevant to note that many nurses in the Ulster Hospital and elsewhere are working at higher grades and have more responsibility than they are being paid for. It is important to sort out our own house. It is also important for cross-border issues. Nursing qualifications in the North are recognised in the Republic and vice versa, but educational qualifications in the North and South must be standardised.
Queen’s University is the only medical school in Northern Ireland, but there are several such schools in the Republic. Qualifications are recognised on both sides of the border and worldwide. The same goes for special needs, general medicine and surgery, but other qualifications such as diplomas may cause problems.
Doctors and general practitioners from the South work in Northern Ireland in primary care, and the same applies vice versa. The question of doctors being revalidated every few years is at the forefront of debate in the United Kingdom, including Northern Ireland, and parts of Western Europe. That will also apply to nurses and members of other professions. I am not sure what the position on revalidation is in the South, but that is something to be considered over the next couple of years.
The North/South Ministerial Council set up the Obstacles to Mobility working group that dealt with standardisation and recognition of qualifications across the board. Ms Morrice made some comments about social workers. The social worker mobility study was part of that working group. The Northern Ireland Social Care Council was established on 1 October 2001. Its primary role is to register and regulate the social care workforce and to draw up codes of practice for social care workers and their employers. The council was set up to redress the lack of qualifications among social care staff here. Bearing in mind that 80% of the 30,000 social care staff in Northern Ireland have no relevant qualifications, the cross-border mobility study was undertaken for the National Social Work Qualifications Board in the South and the Central Council for Education and Training in Social Work in Northern Ireland. The aim of the research was to analyse social work training courses on both sides of the border to identify any differences between them and to examine, in particular, social policy, social delivery structure and law. The ultimate aim of the project is to facilitate the cross-border mobility of social workers through the development of a teaching tool to bridge any gaps in training between the two jurisdictions.
The most significant difference between training for social work in each jurisdiction was that, in general, courses in the Republic lasted longer than courses in the North.
Among the recommendations for facilitating cross- border mobility was the creation of a system of cross- border exchange placements, an idea that was generally well received on both sides. It was suggested that intensive seminar exchanges, and the sharing of information, should continue. Recommendations were also made in regard to the contents of the resource pack, social services systems and Government structures.
There is still much work to be done, but progress is being made. The Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety has the support of the House in carrying out this useful work.

Mr George Savage: When dealing with such issues as the validation of qualifications, we should think in broader terms, beyond an all-Ireland approach. Recently, the all- Ireland approach has proved beneficial in dealing with foot-and-mouth disease. Everyone is concerned about health, and the all-Ireland approach to such matters of common concern as healthcare is always sensible, but we must also think in European terms.
Surely there is parity of qualifications between member states? Recently, Spanish doctors and nurses were recruited to the beleaguered English Health Service. Their medical qualifications, therefore, were acceptable. Is the motion really necessary? Surely protocols exist for the recognition of all qualifications obtained in EU member states? Are we saying that those protocols are inadequate? There is a sound reason for their existence: to ensure genuine comparability of qualifications between member states.
The Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety should indicate whether she is satisfied that those protocols are effective. If they are, why change them? On an administrative level it may be simpler to change them, so that those from the South may apply more easily for jobs in the Health Service here. However, does that not discriminate against those with equivalent qualifications from other member states such as Germany, France or Spain? The Minister for Employment and Learning could no doubt advise us on that. However, we must be mindful that we do not breach European regulations by giving favoured member status to the Republic of Ireland over other member states.
Should there not be protective measures for those who have already qualified in Northern Ireland? Comparability of qualifications is all right in itself, but those who qualify in our own system must be protected. If there is a shortage of applicants for jobs, people will have to be recruited from other countries. However, if that is not the case, are we to allow those from elsewhere to slip into jobs in our system ahead of those who qualified in Northern Ireland?
We have a duty of care to protect students who qualify in our own institutions in the job recruitment in our system. Our primary duty is to protect the welfare of the young people of Northern Ireland. We must not be seen to enact legislation that is contrary to EU regulations. Anything that can be done to bring the Health Service up to a more acceptable standard must be the priority of every Member.

Mr John Dallat: I am old enough to remember when work permits were necessary in order to get a job in the North. However, we now live in a global society in which people want to travel and gain experiences — they do not want bureaucracy to get in the way of their careers.
The motion is useful in that it raises issues that affect all Departments. Since partition there have been many cases of hardship created and maintained by two sets of bureaucracy that sought to separate, differentiate and divide. Health has no respect for political borders. However, the absence of common validation and recognition of qualifications has created real hardship for the people who work in the Health Service and, more importantly perhaps, for the people who need the service.
Cross-border bodies create opportunities to confront many issues relating to qualifications and training. As already mentioned, our membership of the EU endorses that fine principle and in many respects enables us to address the issue.
I support the motion and I hope that progress is made with expediency and effect on this issue, on education, on the legal system, on social services, and on many other issues that affect people’s lives daily.

Mr Billy Hutchinson: This is an important motion, and I thank the Member from Sinn Féin, Ms Ramsey, for tabling it. However, as the old joke goes — if a plane crashes on the border between Switzerland and Italy, where are the survivors buried? We must focus on the issue. We talk about where people should receive the medical treatment they need, and who is best equipped to administer it. However, if someone is the recipient of medical care, it does not matter who provides it, or where that person receives it, as long as he or she is receiving the best attention.
The point has been made that we live in a global society. We should view this issue in an all-Ireland and British Isles context and also, as Jane Morrice stated, in a European context. I want people to return to the Health Service in Northern Ireland. Members should recognise that there are a number of foreign nationals working in the Health Service, all of whom provide a service here that is not being provided by other people for different reasons. We should not be disparaging about Filipinos or anybody else. They have come here and they have done a job, and I think that they have done it very well. Anyone who has relatives in hospitals or nursing homes where those people are working will bear testament to that.

Ms Sue Ramsey: By tabling the motion I did not intend to be disparaging about outsiders coming here to work. The motion aims to make it easier for people who gain qualifications in Belfast but who want to work in Louth to be able to work there. I was not criticising outsiders who come here to work.

Mr Billy Hutchinson: I am not suggesting that Ms Ramsey said that. I am picking up on what other Members said when they mentioned Filipinos. I am saying that we should recognise the skills that those people have and what they do in the medical professions.
There is a great deal of talk about qualifications. It is important that somebody who has qualified at Queen’s University can go to work in Dublin, Milan or elsewhere. That is their choice, and they are entitled to it.
When I was growing up there was a notion about hospitals and nurses. People had a Florence Nightingale- syndrome conception about nursing. That has changed. Nowadays, young girls and young men do not see nursing as a profession that they want to go into because there are so many social problems. The Government did not put money into the Health Service in Northern Ireland over the past 30 years, and everyone knows what has happened.
A few weeks ago, when Belfast City Hospital staff were dealing with people involved in the anthrax scare at the Post Office, 46 people were lying on trolleys in corridors. That image is not one that would encourage people to work in the Health Service.
Nurses, doctors and medical staff are people’s first point of contact when entering an accident and emergency department, and they are often abused because there are no beds available or because patients cannot get immediate treatment. We must improve the Health Service to attract staff back — nurses do not want to stay in that situation.
I gave blood yesterday here, and I spoke to one of the staff. She said that she had left the City Hospital to work for the Blood Transfusion Service because the abuse from patients and their relatives on the wards was increasing and that it was worse for her colleagues in accident and emergency. This is a result of a lack of proper Health Service funding over the past 30 years.

Mr Speaker: Order. The Member is roving wide of the debate, which, as I remind the House, is about the validation and mutual recognition of qualifications and not about staffing levels.

Mr Billy Hutchinson: I understand that, Mr Speaker. I can see why you think that I am wide of the mark. Validation and recognition of qualifications are important, but my point is that we must remind ourselves that we have a problem in Northern Ireland and in the United Kingdom because the Health Service has been run down over the past 30 years. Unless we do something about that, cross-border validation and recognition of qualifications will be meaningless and will not help the situation.

Ms Bairbre de Brún: Gabhaim buíochas le Sue Ramsey as an cheist seo a thabhairt faoi bhráid an Tionóil. Tá áthas orm bheith in ann freastal ar an díospóireacht agus chuir mé suim, agus mé ag éisteacht, sna pointí a luaigh Comhaltaí.
Tá suim ar leith agam i bheith ag obair le bailíocht chomónta agus aitheantas ar chailíochtaí fhoireann na seirbhísí sláinte agus sóisialta a bhaint amach ar bhonn trasteorann. Aithním fosta go gcuireann an iomad gairmí atá bainteach leis seo le castacht an ábhair. Tá difear ann idir na grúpaí gairmiúla ó thaobh an mhéid iniúchta a rinneadh ar fhorbairt bailíochta comónta.
Caithfidh daoine a fuair a gcuid cailíochtaí sa Deisceart, agus rinne Comhaltaí tagairt dó sin sa díospóireacht, aitheantas foirmiúil a fháil dóibh ón bhord rialaithe abhus le ligean dóibh oibriú mar altra nó mar chnáimhseach sna seirbhísí sláinte sóisialta agus pearsanta. Is é a fhearacht sin ag daoine i ngrúpaí gairmiúla eile a fuair a gcuid cailíochtaí sa Deisceart agus ar mian leo oibriú sa Tuaisceart.
Ciallaíonn sin go gcaithfidh duine clárú leis na boird rialaithe sa Tuaisceart agus sa Deisceart faoi seach le cleachtadh sa dá dhlínse, fiú má aithnítear an chailíocht ghairmiúil féin sa Tuaisceart agus sa Deisceart.
Mr Speaker, I thank Sue Ramsey for bringing this matter to the Floor of the House. I am pleased that I have been able to attend the debate, and I have listened with interest to the points made by Members.
Working towards a common validation and recognition of the qualifications of health and social services staff on a cross-border basis is an area in which I have a particular interest. I recognise that the wide range of professionals involved makes this complex. The extent to which the development of common validation has been explored varies between professional groups.
Ms Ramsey and other Members have pointed out that people who qualify in nursing in the South must have their qualifications formally recognised by the regulatory body here to allow them to work as nurses or midwives here. The same is true for people in other professions who qualify in the South and who wish to work here. Therefore although a professional qualification may be recognised North and South, to be able to practise in both jurisdictions, a person must register with both regulatory bodies.
Dr Hendron said that some groups have taken steps to correct this, resulting in the new regulatory body for social care staff, the Northern Ireland Social Care Council (NISCC) and the Central Council for Education and Training in Social Work its predecessor (CCETSW). These bodies have established close links with the National Social Work Qualifications Board (NSWQB) in the South and have undertaken some joint work, including the recent cross-border mobility study. I am keen to see further development of initiatives of this kind, as such work is extremely important.
Some of the existing arrangements inhibit the development of flexible cross-border working patterns that would offer service benefits North and South. Mr Savage and others queried the potential benefits, but they are clearly there.
The Centre for Cross Border Studies published a report earlier this year on cross-border co-operation in health services in Ireland. The report cited the requirement that registration and accreditation of nursing, medical and allied professions be carried out North and South as a serious inhibition to developing joint appointments, staff rotations, placements and cross-covering, all of which health professionals have been discussing as ways to improve services in their areas.
The report highlighted the fact that undergraduate and postgraduate training is organised and accredited by different bodies, North and South. It was also recognised that, in many cases, reciprocal recognition does not exist, and this inhibits partnerships in training programmes.
As Mr Dallat said, there are other aspects far beyond the question of validation or accreditation that must be taken into account. In considering the obstacles to mobility, the North/South Ministerial Council will consider some of the more general questions. The main issue is not just mutual recognition, but also differing terms and conditions of service and general barriers, not specifically related to health and social care.
Mr Savage asked whether the measures that are in place, or that we seek to take forward, are discriminatory. The underlying rationale of mutual recognition is to remove the potential for discriminatory action; it will not favour one member state over another.
The North/South Ministerial Council has commissioned a study on obstacles to mobility between the two parts of the island. I anticipate that similar barriers will be identified to those already cited and which individuals have encountered when moving, either North to South or vice versa.
Dr Hendron mentioned co-operation. The health and social care professionals working in border areas have local knowledge of the practical benefits of working together in the various fields. They have carried out that work across different areas. The recent Altnagelvin/ Letterkenny partnership project, for example, detailed 13 constraints to effective cross-border partnership. The knowledge and awareness of the various barriers and obstacles to cross-border working has come from those who have working experience and who seek to improve matters in their areas. They are, therefore, well placed to contribute to the North/South Ministerial Council’s study of obstacles to mobility.
These considerations highlight the complexity of the area and the need to be clear about the barriers and how they might be overcome. I am keen to see progress on the matter and will be exploring the use of the North/South Ministerial Council as a vehicle for progressing the issue.
Ms Morrice and others said that this is a question for the island of Ireland. It is also a question in a wider European context. I was delighted to jointly open a recent conference at which the delegates studied the work in the wider context.
I have listened carefully to Members’ contributions and will respond in writing to any issues that I have not covered. I welcome this debate; it is key to the improvement of border areas. It is vital that people from that substantial part of the island get the best out of local services. A recent North/South Ministerial Council sectoral meeting on health and food safety considered regional and supraregional services. I appreciate the attention that the Assembly is giving to this important matter.

Ms Sue Ramsey: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I listened carefully to the Minister and to Members.
This is probably one of our easiest debates on health matters. As far as I know, it is the first time that everyone has agreed a motion. We are moving forward.
Several Members mentioned the problems faced by the Health Service in general, and I agree with them. However, if we make it easier for staff to work on an all-island basis we shall fill gaps in provision in the short term. Kieran McCarthy said that we should not concentrate solely on the border counties. I agree with that, but the primary effect of the proposed changes will be on people living in those areas, because they live close to hospitals on either side of the border.
Jane Morrice and Billy Hutchinson mentioned the European market. I agree with what they said, but, at present, nursing staff must re-register, which has cost implications for the individual. That system should be stopped, and registration should be automatic. Several Members, including Mr Dallat, said that the issue involved all Departments. We should aim at making things easier for professionals working in the health sector or in any other sector.
Dr Hendron rightly said that nursing staff were the backbone of the Health Service. I also agree with Mr Savage, who said that it was not simply an all-Ireland matter and that we must examine the matter in a European context. However, tall oaks from little acorns grow. The problem of foot-and-mouth disease was dealt with successfully by work done on an all-Ireland basis. If we start by considering qualifications from an all-Ireland perspective we can progress to involving the British-Irish Council and Brussels.
I thank the Minister for saying that the motion covered a range of professionals associated with the Health Service. It highlights the problems faced by those working at service delivery level. All Members seem to agree with the motion, so I hope that it will be passed. We must sort out the problems as soon as possible.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved:
That this Assembly calls on the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety to work towards the common validation and recognition of the qualifications of health and social services staff on a cross-border basis.

RUC Reserve Pensions

Mr Derek Hussey: I beg to move
That this Assembly supports the right of the Royal Ulster Constabulary Reserve (Part-Time) to proper pension provision.
The part-time Royal Ulster Constabulary Reserve was formed under section 9 of the Police Act (Northern Ireland) 1970. The full-time Reserve also came into being in 1970. I propose the motion knowing that it relates to a reserved matter but trusting that those at Westminster who have responsibility for it will read the Hansard report of today’s debate with interest and will rectify an unacceptable position.
The only mention of pension provision for part-time RUC Reserve members in the Police Pension Regulations is as follows:
"Where a member is medically discharged from the force because of an injury received in the execution of his duty and sick pay ceases, the RUC (R) Pensions Regulations provide for the payment of a pension if the member, as a result of his injury (providing such injury is not wholly or mainly due to the member’s own serious and culpable negligence or misconduct), is permanently disabled from following his own employment. The amount of such pension, which includes a lump sum payment, depends on the degree of disablement, the rate of Police pay on which the calculation is based, the length of RUC (Reserve) service and the National Insurance Benefit to which a member may be entitled."
There is no doubt that pensions is an extremely complex arena.
Part-time RUC Reserve members are liable for further national insurance contributions under the Social Security Benefit (Northern Ireland) Act 1992 to the maximum contribution levels that occasionally apply. There was no mention of a pension for part-time members anywhere in RUC Regulations. Similarly, no pension provision was made for full-time members of the RUC Reserve: rather, a £500 bounty was paid on a triennial basis — a not inconsiderable amount in the 1970s. At the same time, regular RUC officers received no bounty, but were still expected to pay a percentage of their pay into the pension scheme. Some officers received less take-home pay than some of their full-time Reserve colleagues.
It seems strange and, indeed, discriminatory that full-time Reserve members were paid a bounty every three years while part-time members were not. That bounty was surely a payment in place of a pension provision. A judicial review in 1994 rightly resulted in a pension scheme’s being awarded to full-time RUC Reserve officers, backdated to 1988. Again, the part-time Reserve was not included in those new arrangements.
I shall speak about the status of the part-time Reserve. Part of the problem is that some people regard the part-time Reserve as part-time employees of a part-time force. Full-time Reserve officers are full-time workers employed under renewable contracts, and the Chief Constable regards that section of the force as essential. He has praised that part of the full-time force and believes that he would have great difficulty meeting policing needs without the part-time Reserve. The full-time element of the Reserve is made up of full-time workers, and the part-time Reserve is part of that. Members are not part-time workers of a part-time force; they are part-time workers of a full-time force. There was a debate earlier on the rights of part-time workers. This motion continues that debate but addresses a specific aspect of it.
Let us briefly look at the work of the part-time force. Men and women do their day’s work but assist the community and help to maintain security in the evenings and at weekends, and their presence frees full-time Reserve and regular officers. Surely, we all recognise the important work that policing must undertake, particularly in the evenings and at weekends. I also remind the Assembly that the part-time Reserve remains in situ under the new policing arrangements.
Under the terms of the relevant pension legislation, part-time Reserve members were and are in non-pensionable employment. Heretofore, that also applied to the full-time RUC Reserve. Part-time members could, if they wished, contribute to their pension plans, and those contributions were eligible for tax relief at the highest rate. All contributions to an approved pension scheme are eligible for such relief. If, as in the case of the full-time Reserve, a bounty of £500 were paid into a pension fund, a gross payment in the region of £700 would have followed.
At that time of high inflation and of high returns from tax-free growth, which were allowed because of the legislation that applied to pension contracts, a substantial fund could have been established for part-time members. The majority of those members have given more than 20 years’ service to the Northern Ireland community. That should have provided a reasonable annuity and, in normal circumstances, a lump sum at a reasonable cost to the taxpayer. The police pension scheme is one of the best available in the public service. It allows for retirement after 30 years’ service, with no loss of benefits for retirement before the statutory age of 65.
I hope that the Assembly will agree that the RUC part-time Reserve has been overlooked for years in respect of a bounty payment or a pension. The present Government have introduced the stakeholder pension scheme. Part-time members have received letters that tell them that they can buy into the scheme. However, when they buy in, they receive no Government contribution, unlike their full-time colleagues. Others who work in security and emergency cover in Northern Ireland, such as the Territorial Army and the Royal Irish Regiment — formerly the Ulster Defence Regiment — contain part- time elements who receive a bounty payment. I ask the Assembly to support the RUC part-time officers’ attempts to get what they duly deserve.

Mr Alex Attwood: I wish to raise some points about the entitlements and future recruitment of the Police Service of Northern Ireland Reserve. Members have on various occasions discussed the entitlements of workers in Northern Ireland. One such debate was on the minimum wage, which applies especially to those in part-time permanent or temporary contracts. Therefore in the context of the entitlements of workers in general, and of part-time workers in particular, the Chamber should consider the work and employment conditions of PSNI members and of the PSNI Reserve.
On hourly rates, holiday entitlement, and general pay and conditions, the principle outlined in the motion warrants consideration, and, in many people’s opinion, support. That principle is, if consistency is to be maintained in the Chamber, that all part-time workers should be entitled to equal conditions, whether they belong to the PSNI or to any other public or private service. Given that that is the principle being advanced, the SDLP is sympathetic to Mr Hussey’s motion.
However, Members must be cautious in applying that principle. It was interesting that Mr Hussey talked about the bounty payment for those in the full-time Reserve, and how that could be applied to those in the part-time Reserve. That differs from an established pension scheme in which people make weekly or monthly payments into a pension fund.
That aside, we should be cautious as to how far the principle might apply in respect of pension entitlement for members of any organisation who give only a few hours of service. Part-time workers might work for only four hours in any week. Therefore, the application of a pension principle to those who might work for such limited hours needs to be carefully thought through.
I would also caution that while there may be some merit in the motion, and while it may be considered further in other places, its principle, and the approach adopted by Government and policing organisations to it, should not in any way be used to delay or frustrate the new beginning for policing. There is concern that delays in resolving the negotiations between the representative policing organisations and the Government on the severance scheme for members of the full-time Reserve might bring about a delay in the new beginning for policing. Such delays could be in relation to the phasing out of the full-time Reserve or to the recruitment of the new PSNI part-time Reserve.
Whatever the entitlement of the full-time or part-time Reserve might be, it is important, in order to be consistent with the new beginning for policing, and mindful of the security situation, that recruitment into the new part-time Reserve start quickly. In that recruitment the Patten principle that people should be recruited from areas where there are no, or few, members of the current part-time Reserve should be applied vigorously. It is important that the target of 2,500 part-time Reserve members over three years, outlined in the Patten implementation plan, be achieved in a way that is consistent with the new beginning for policing. That will ensure that the growing support for the PSNI will begin to develop pace in all sections and all communities in the North.

Mr Speaker: Order. I must caution the Member that the motion is very clear. It is about the RUC part-time Reserve and the pensions of people from that era. It is straying outside the realms of the motion to talk about those who may come to be members of the PSNI.

Mr Alex Attwood: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I was somewhat surprised that you have already given me the flexibility that you have.
I return to the substance of the motion. It is also important — and this is part of the emotional thinking as opposed to the political and tactical thinking behind what Derek Hussey has outlined — to acknowledge that the part-time Reserve, over the years of service within the RUC, and now within the PSNI, did fulfil a valuable role. That role was not the role of the established RUC; it was to provide community support and community service in the North. Contractually and practically, that was the role of the part-time Reserve, and that role will be valuable in the future in ensuring that the core value of policing — community policing — is honoured, respected and advanced. In having sympathy with the motion, we wish to acknowledge that that was the historic and intended role of the part-time Reserve. We also acknowledge that its members — like other members of the RUC — far too often, in far too many places and in far too many ways, had unjustified and illegitimate threat and terror inflicted on them. Immense pain was caused to the part-time Reserve, the RUC and their wider families. In that context, and for those reasons, the SDLP has sympathy with the motion and will not oppose it.
12.00

Mr Ian Paisley Jnr: I congratulate Mr Hussey for moving the motion. The DUP will wholeheartedly support it, and I hope that all Members support it fulsomely and without caveat. It is essential that the House should defend the rights of those in employment, whether they work in the Health Service, education or policing. Public representatives have a duty to do that.
I hope that no one will let his anti-RUC bias deny members of the RUC Reserve their pension rights. I welcome Mr Attwood’s saying that it is appropriate for proper employment arrangements to be made for the RUC. It is appropriate. He made some justification of it. I do not mind what spin he puts on it as long as he and the SDLP support the motion. That is progress.
The House must send out the message that RUC Reserve pensioners deserve proper recognition and proper pension rights. It is essential that the House does what it can to raise that issue with the Government, the Chief Constable and those people who take the decisions that deny members of the RUC Reserve their proper pension rights.
Mr Hussey mentioned the vital role played by part- time members of the RUC. That can be seen from the rolls of honour in police stations and other public buildings that show the ultimate sacrifice that those people made, even though they were part-time members of the police force.
Mr Attwood said that the RUC Reserve did play a vital role. I hope that "did" is not the operative word and that the Reserve continues to play a vital role because it remains part of policing here.
I was interested in the operational manpower figures for Northern Ireland in Her Majesty’s Inspector of Constabulary’s report. They should be a wake-up call for Members interested in effective policing. Members of the Northern Ireland Policing Board should accept that if they want more beat officers in rural and urban areas, full-time and part-time members of the Reserve play a vital part in everyday policing here.
Look at the statistics. In Mr Attwood’s constituency, West Belfast, 43% of all police officers on the beat are members of the full-time and part-time Reserve. In areas west of the Bann, an average of one in three officers is in the full-time or part-time Reserve. In North Antrim, 25% of officers on operational duty are in the full-time or part-time Reserve. In other areas the figures are over 40%. People should realise that the vital role played by those members must be recognised by an adequate salary and pension and, as Mr Hussey pointed out, by a bounty such as is made available to others who work for the defence of this country.
The policing demands of Northern Ireland cannot do without the level of manpower that the full-time and part-time Reserve provide. With that important issue in mind, it is essential that we support the motion. Some people are in danger of sacrificing good and effective policing on the altar of Patten, as if he were a god.

Mr Speaker: Order. What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. The motion does not refer to upcoming officers in a new and developing service, but to the right of the part-time RUC Reserve to receive proper pension entitlement. The motion refers to part-time, not full-time, staff, and to past, rather than future, service. I draw that to the Member’s attention as I drew it to the attention of Mr Attwood earlier.

Mr Ian Paisley Jnr: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I consider myself told off and reprimanded. Nonetheless, I am glad to have put those issues on the record.
I agree with Mr Hussey that many members of the RUC Reserve have been overlooked with regard to pensions or bounties. However, I will go further and say that they have been treated with contempt when it comes to their pension rights. They are being turned into a political sacrifice, and they are paying the price, because they are losing their pension rights. Northern Ireland is also paying a price, because it will lose out on the service and the level of effectiveness that we can expect from the police in the future. I hope that all sides of the House will have the courage of their convictions. If Members support employment and pension rights for other people under other circumstances, I hope that they will support those rights for members of the RUC Reserve.

Sir John Gorman: I support the motion, which is very appropriate at the moment. I have a little problem with the new initials — PSNI — especially after your chastisement of my Colleagues, Mr Speaker, for introducing what you saw as a subject that was not relevant to the motion. Nonetheless, it is important that people like me, who have never had any initials to use other than "RUC", get into the habit of using "PSNI" and become familiar with the term. Mention of the PSNI is relevant because if the treatment of the former RUC Reserve members is unjust and ungenerous, that will have an effect on the future recruitment of a very necessary part of the policing service of the country.
I know well from my own many years of service in the police that there are many occasions of public importance — from motor racing events to political gatherings and other large public occasions — which it would be absurd to man with expensive, professional, highly trained people. What is needed is bodies on the ground who are well trained for the functions that they are being asked to perform and who are available at short notice.
If we forget about the service of the part-time RUC Reserve, we will find their replacements hard to recruit. We spoke to the Police Federation, which represents all ranks of the police on such matters, and we were given some technical advice about the complications that could happen if identical pension schemes were to be introduced for regular and reserve police. We concluded that it was proper to examine each police reservist’s service individually. An honorarium system would take due account of the service given by individual men and women and enable them to make pension provision if they so wished. I have discussed this with Mr Hussey, who concurs, and I am happy, therefore, once again, to practise saying the initials "PSNI", and to support the motion.

Mr Derek Hussey: I welcome Members’ contributions. I thank Mr Attwood for his support of the principle and his acknowledgement of the excellent input of officers to the community over 30 years and of the pain — and worse — that they have suffered. I thank Mr Paisley for his expansion of my explanation of the vital role of the reserve element in policing in Northern Ireland.
Mr Speaker, I thank you for your intervention and reminder that the debate is on the RUC part-time Reserve. However, the point was also made that that element continues through. Sir John Gorman took that line. His contribution was one of the most telling. He said that the way we treat officers who have served in the RUC part- time Reserve will impact on people’s attitude to joining the new PSNI. His idea of an honorarium has opened the debate up a little, but policing is a reserved matter. We may have some impact if those responsible read the Hansard report of the debate. I sincerely urge them to consider carefully the matters we have raised. I urge support for the motion.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved:
That this Assembly supports the right of the Royal Ulster Constabulary Reserve (Part-Time) to proper pension provision.
Adjourned at 12.12 pm.